Circuitry MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns documents ordered by recency, excludes specific document types, and reveals the purpose (showing what the user was last working on). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, error conditions, or authentication requirements, keeping it from a perfect score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains what the tool does and its exclusions, the second provides the usage context. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage context effectively. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from briefly mentioning the return format (e.g., list of document objects) to fully compensate for the missing structured data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get recently focused documents'), resource ('documents'), and scope ('ordered by most recent first, excludes chat, browser, and terminal documents'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'documents.getByType' and 'documents.list' by specifying its unique focus on recent user activity with exclusions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'use this to determine which document the user is referring to.' It also implicitly suggests alternatives by mentioning exclusions (chat, browser, terminal documents), which helps differentiate it from other document retrieval tools in the sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.